I confess I stopped reading when they said that "Even Apple Macintosh computers now use x86, after nearly 30 years of utilizing a competing and incompatible ISA known as PowerPC (PPC)."

I understand it's all ancient history now, and that I probably shouldn't expect a ton of fact checking from somebody named "Space Penguin", but it was circa 10 years on Motorola 68k processors and then 12 on PowerPC before the Intel switch in 2006. Maybe the rest of the article is solid, but if I'm reading an article on the details of processors, it worries me when they miss a detail about processors.

If you finish the article, it's not really about any of that at all, he's just writing a flourishing introduction. A detail like that isn't that important in the scope of the article.

But how can I know if I can trust the information in the article that I don't know (the reason I'm reading it), if the information I do know is wrong?

"Maybe the rest of the article is solid, but if I'm reading an article on the details of processors, it worries me when they miss a detail about processors" I think expresses it pretty well.

It's also surprising that the author credits Intel with the invention of ISAs. Sure, x86 is now the dominant ISA in many markets, but the notion of abstraction from hardware implementation was around for at least 10 years before the 8086 processor (IBM 360).

It's not just surprising -- it's a disgusting lack of respect for history. It's kind of like saying McDonald's invented "takeout food" or Madonna invented "pop music".